Rachel Reeves: trying to make numbers fit in is proving to be an impossible task

 

While Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Secretary for Defense John Healey, and other members of the British government can go around making all sorts of promises that they might not be able to deliver, it is up to Rachel Reeves to do all sorts of malabarismos to make numbers add up.

When she talked about pension reforms, she thought that would get more than 160 billion Pound to spend, but recent calculations show that the amount the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have available is less than 11 billion. 

In the meantime, John Healey, Secretary for Defense, has spoken publicly about building 6 munition factories, 12 nuclear submarines and so forth. More than 10 billion Pound are going to be paid to Mauritius for the transfer of the Chagos Islands. Billions of Pound are going to out to support military efforts in Ukraine, including training and sending of more than 100,000 drones (such is the number promised by Prime Minister Keir Starmer when he spoke about a tenfold increase. But there is a lot more. 

In the meantime, there is constant talk about budget cuts affecting Education, the NHS, the benefits system, the Civil Service, the BBC and so forth, on top of cuts for the elderly, the disabled and for those who look after the elderly and the disabled. But the list is a lot longer than that.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is sitting around the table on a daily basis, including Sundays, negotiating with interested parties that are not happy with salary increases and cuts being proposed. So being Chancellor of the Exchequer in these circumstances is not the best post in the British Cabinet. When the Home Office, the Secretary for Defense, the local and regional authorities and whoever else asks for money, she is the one on the spot. The question is how long Rachel Reeves will endure the present state of affairs, before she herself decides that it is an impossible task.

Kier Starmer is very much willing to increase the blackhole ten times over or more

 

The expression "it does not add up" exists for a reason. So what we are being told clases with reality then you have to say that "it does not add up".

For months and even today in Prime Minister Question Time, Keir Starmer kept repeating the mantra about the 22 billion blackhole generated by the previous Conservative Administration.

Now, you look at the shopping list presented in the last few days and you realize that the numbers Keir Starmer is dealing with "do not add aup". More than 10 billion for Mauritius. More than 5 billion for Ukraine - in fact we have lost the count of all the monies sent to Ukraine and this includes also equipment for military use. About 22 billion Pound for a project promoted by Ed Milliband regarding the environment (not mentioning planning application changes that will allow developers to wipe out entire greenbelt areas) But the list of investments promised goes on and on. But not a word in terms of where the monies for those investments are coming from.

Keir Starmer keeps saying that Conservative criticism is unwarranted, and especially one specific benefit like the Winter Allowance that is less than peanuts compared to all other promises made by the Labour governement including nationalisation of railways services (not just the network, but also the trains that deliver such services) and the possible nationalisation of utility companies like Thames Water, a giant that is in financial troubles).

It is difficult to follow the Prime Minister and-or other members of the Cabinet that go around promised this, that and the other thing. Prime Minister, where is the money coming from?

John Healey came with announcements about the creation of 6 ammunition factories and the building of 12 nuclear submarines, the production of tens of thousands of drones promised to Ukraine, and much more.

Then we went the news that Helen Hayes MP is due to contact Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner to ask for a financial plan to support struggling local authorities. Once again, where will the money come from if money is being sent left, right, up and down in every possible direction. Just cancelling the Winter Allowance and cutting benefits for the disabled and the unemployed will not do the trick. We are talking about hundreds of billions of Pound and especially after the news that NATO does not 3% investment in defense, but 3.5% investment in defense.

With every passing day, the Labour government keeps adding items to the shopping list and as Paul Samuelson, the American Economist, put it, it is either butter or cannons. Whatever you investing in one thing is the monies that you have to reduce somewhere else. We have not even reached the Autum Budget.

Once again the Secretary for Defense John Healey MP promised to increase tenfold the number of drones sent to Ukraine. The cost of building and sending those drones, will it come from the monies said to be invested in improving Britain´s state of readiness for war?

Are you an accountant or somebody that has some expertise in auditing accounts? Would you like to audit the Labour government´s accounts? I am sure that it could be an experience that you could not possibly ever forget. Has Rachel Reeves something to say about all the promises made? I am sure that Rachel Reeves herself is rather stressed up. Imagine having to change the books every time the Prime Minister or other Members of the Cabinet make promises that force you to recalculate the way you plan to run finances. From the time you get to bed until the time you get up, everything will have changed. I am sure that when she wakes up in the morning, she does not experience nice feelings. It is much more like a nightmare.

Now, Sue Grey, the woman chosen by Keir Starmer to be Chief of Staff, did not last long. She resigned and went as fast as she had come in. Well, if you are an intelligent and clever operator, you can see from a mile how things are going to be, and it has been a nightmare. And the nightmare is just beginning. 

UK Politics: Electoral Results seem to trump caution

Rachel Reeves seemed to symbolize levels of caution that from July 2024 led many to believe that Old Labour was gone. Labour sought to impose levels of autority that made many Labour Party supporters to question their allegiance to the Labour Party.

In a recent parliamentary election in Runcorn, neither the Labour Party Leader and Prime Minister Keir Starmer nor the Conservative Party Leader bothered to shop up during campaigning. The outcome was a lost by-elecition in which Reform won the day with a less than 10 votes difference.

But at lot worse has happened since then. In a rush to reach financial agreements with foreign countries, Labour has effectively given up British sovereignty and even the future of British workerss and British companies by offering absolutely unfair advantanges to Britain´s competitors.

In this most recent appearance, Keir Starmer mentioned the leader of the Reform Party not once but once every minute. No mention of the official Oppositon Leader Kemi Badenoch that has been reported absent.

Undoubtedly, this is fight for survival, but it feels like pushing an entire Army without weapons towards the frontline. Caution has been thrown to the wind. All the talk about financial control has been lost and Britain is bleeding money. Money for foreign countries for dubious deals and money to buy its way out of electoral disaster. Maybe the new Labour Party promises should be limited by the Electoral Commission because Labour´s announcements in terms of using public monies sound more and more like political campaigning and not as the actions of responsible government.

Keir Starmer vs (John McDonnell, Nigel Farage and Angela Rayner)

 

Keir Starmer was employed to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn. This was his main job. In so doing, he tried to wipe out every one who was seen, openly or under cover) as a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn.

When started moving towards the right, Keir Starmer started creating a void in areas that have been traditionally Labour Party territory.

Keir Stamer won an election telling lies about what Labour was going to do. He made promises and turned promises into slogans. Like George Bush and the famous "read my lips, no more taxes), Keir Starmer proposed auterity on top of austerity. It has been an absolute disaster, given Reform the golden opportunity to make a very successful incursion into Labour´s traditional territory.

Many years ago, the Labour Party turned its back to the British working class and opened the floodgates to mass immigration, bringing in thousands upon thousands to replace the white working class that, left without representation, joined the National Front and the British National Party. Even a London Assembly Member elected to represent the British National Party was a well known Labour Party member that disillusioned with the Labour Party decided to joine the British National Party then led by Nicholas Griffin.

The working classes trusted the British National Party and the British National Party had resounding victories, including the election of local councillors (it was the official opposition in Barking and Dagenham) and had elected members in several local authorities, had a London Assembly Member and had two Members of the European Parliament.

Some years ago, a Conservative Leader, Boris Johnson, won the vote of the working clases in the so called Red Wall. Now, Reform threatens to do exactly the same by taking onboard former Labour Party policies, and this comes after a massive electoral success, having taken over most of the local authorities being disputed in local elections and turning other local authorities into no overall control, several mayoral seats and winning an additional parliamentary seat in Runcorn.

And what is the danger for Keir Starmer. Two factions are threatening his authority from inside the Labour Party. Undoubtedly, although John McDonnell was practically forced to become independent, people who support the line supported by John Mcdonnell can see this as an opportunity to get rid of Keir Starmer. Angela Rayner went all the way to the BBC, appearing in one of the main, if not the main, political programme of the BBC to say that she has no intention to challenge Keir Starmer. She should have added "not yet". 

Foreseen events like strikes in the state education sector, in the NHS and in several areas of the public administration, combined with comings and goings when it comes to economic policies will be fertile ground to cut short Keir Starmer´s Prime Ministerial Career.

Any more faux pas, any more mishaps, any more electoral disasters could be the iceberg that sinks the Titanic. Interesting to see the outcome of the next local elections, including local elections in London, in 2026. 

Rachel Reeves is a key player and her room for maneuver is schrinking in size one day at a time. She herself might decide to throw the towel and this would be an absolute disaster. Labour´s argument is entirely based on the economy and the resignation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be undeniable evidence of the total failure of the Labour Administration.    

While Rachel Reeves struggles to keep the boat afloat, Keir Starmer is keeping his eyes off the ball

 

The British economy is heading towards the rocks, Rachel Reeves is seeing a financial cushion evaporating, making the three bad options available as a threat.

Regardless of the what the Bank of England does or does not do, investors might have different ideas. Would you put your monies on the Titanic?

So what next? More taxes, more borrowing or more cuts of public services or a combination of the three.

This at a time when the Prime Minister might be talking about forcefully increasing expenditure in defense. Well, if the theoretical conflict is imminent, time ran out a long time ago. What is the reality of British military strength? A few nuclear bombs that Britain cannot use for fear of retaliation against all British cities. When it comes to conventional warfare, Britain is absolutely naked.  

4 Days to go: 20 January 2025

 

Whether the Knesset ratifies any ceasefire remains to be seen. President Biden wanted to close his time in office with some big news, but premeditated Jewish delays are already threatening the supposed ceasefire deal as 70 Palestinians are murdered by Israel in the last few hours.

Everybody is expecting big changes in national and international politics. Panama Canal built by USA to be controlled by USA. Another USA State or more than one new USA States? And when you talk about the Gulf, it might not be about Middle East or Asia Minor but closer to home as the Gulf of Mexico becomes the Gulf of America.

Will Keir Starmer, Zelensky and Ursula von der Leyen be invited to the inauguration of the new American President? Another bit of 'let's wait and see'. Will the now British Foreign Secretary that has repeatedly insulted President Donald Trump be invited to the ceremonial and very formal occasion?

We know that happened to Governor Trudeau that soonafter a meeting with President Trump was given his marching orders. Will other politicians be given their marching orders? Again, let's wait and see. In Germany, a Federal Election can dramatically change the political environment in Germany and in France the new Prime Minister is fighting for his survival and being threatened with a no confidence vote. Will he last until July 2025 when new French Assembly Elections can take place.

And in Britain, Keir Starmer is losing cabinet members as trees lose leaves in the autumn. Will Rachel Reeves remain in her post? Let's see what she can come up with in the new budget. Although inflation is said to have fallen, the fall has nothing to do with announced financial measures that will only come into effect in April 2025. Let's see what happens to inflation after April 2025 when the real picture of the British economy will come to the surface. 

The Real War is ongoing: it is happening as right now.

There were many wars before and we were led to believe that wars were about guns, bombs and cannons. But there are other wars taking place. These are wars fought with legislation and censorship. The American legal system has been weaponised and used for illegal purposes. In Britain, the Labour Party is waging war by preventing people from knowing what is really happening in Britain. The EU mandarins have a similar strategy. They want to protect you from the truth. They have to hide their mistakes and the consequences of their mistakes.

The facts are plainly visible. If there are lower temperatures, renewable energy is not nearly enough to meet the needs of the country. In Britain, without sunshine and without wind, barely 9 per cent of the energy needed was provided with renewables. So what about the 91 per cent? It was provided with fossil fuels. We must always have Plan B and even Plan C. Ideology is driving politics and this is a recipe for disaster.

So now Rachel Reeves put herself against the wall and put the country against the wall and is doing so with the help of Ed Milliband and other ideologists who ignore realities for the sake of ideological stances. And when reality knocks, what is the alternative proposed? To prevent people from knowing what is going on. But reality is too big and there is no carpet big enough to cover up what is happening. They inflated a gigantic ballon made of lies and deceit and there are needles everywhere. The idiots still believe that taxing the wealthy is the magic solution. What they do not understand is that given the size of the British economy there is not enough money in rich peoples pockets in Britain to prevent Britain from falling apart. We are talking about trillions of Pounds and the debt clock is ticking ever faster. 

At this point in time, British politicians keep posturing and talking about saving the rest of the world when in fact they are involved in a huge money laundering exercise while the walls of the British economy are getting plenty of cracks. Let us remember that those sending British money away will not last long. What needs to be remberered is that they are very much the problem.  

EU mandarins are telling us that they will cancel elections or annul elections if elections do not go their way and they are doing so very publicly and openly. This tells you very clearly that EU mandarins are the enemy.

Wednesday, October 30th, 2024 - Budget Day

 

This is personal, stated the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves. She refers to realities of the 1980s and 1990s. The Chancellor's efforts to gather capital will drag hundreds of thousands more people into paying tax and even more into higher rates as their pay rises, indicates none other than The Guardian.

Could a personal crusade turn into a nightmare? Changing fiscal rules to disguise debt making it appear as something else does not change the fact that it will still be borrowing. So more taxes and more borrowing that will be increased for public interest, according to the Chancellor.

Ordinary folk and many business were badly hit by the Covid Pandemic and the measures implemented to deal with the Covid Pandemic. After that, people and many business were hit by the energy crise generated by the conflict in Ukraine and the measures adopted against the Russian Federation. 

Now, they stand to be hit again by taxation and potentially higher prices of utilities, housing and daily shopping.

But the Chancellor of the Exchequer still says that she will implement the budget in a way that she will 'protect the living standards of working people'. 

Well, in an interview made in Washington, USA, Rachel Reeves - perhaps inadvertently - made promises that she will have to deliver. If she does not deliver and if the measures implemented by the Labour government become a de facto nightmare, then this will create a widely open door for another Conservative government.

Starting on Wednesday, October 30th, 2024, the government will have to deliver and with every failure, and every new crise, there will be many by-elections along the way in which people will express their discontent.

She talks about building schools and hospitals. Well, what will she do about nurses salaries that are not enough to rent a one bedroom flat? If living costs keep rising, this will be a de facto devaluation of salaries and a worsening of living standards. Before she goes around building schools and hospitals, she will have to look carefully at salaries actually paid to teachers and NHS staff. 

Even with the triple lock, state pensions are not enough to rent a one bedroom flat. State pensions are totally insufficient. Taxing state pensions and private pensions can only worsen an already bad situation. And this is going to do nothing to 'protect living standards'.  

Will a 40% tax on oil and gas companies reduce investment from about 13 billion down to 2.5 billion?

 Dear Rachel Reeves MP,

As Chancellor of the Exchequer, you will impose a windfall tax of almost 40% on oil and gas companies. 

Reports indicate that investment in the UK of the said oil and gas companies will fall from about 13 billion down to 2.5 billion and that therefore in coming years the tax revenues will be reduced accordingly.

When such tax revenues fall, how do you plan to replace oil and gas falling tax revenues?

I am also sending this message to my Member of Parliament, Helen Hayes MP, because I am very curious and very much interested in knowing about Plan B, if Plan A reduces tax revenues, what plans are in place to find tax revenues to replaced oil and gas tax revenues?

This is a very relevant question when you are about to implement a new state of austerity because we are talking both about tax revenues, investment and energy prices. If less oil and gas are produced, will this push prices up and therefore also push consumer prices up (inflation)?

Workers working in the oil and gas industries are highly especialized workers whose jobs are going to be in danger. We are talking about 35,000 highly trained individuals. If investment falls, it is also expected that unemployment will rise. Is this something that you have taken into consideration?

This could have a domino effect regarding industries that are closely linked to oil and gas industries. Is this something that you have taken into consideration?

Best regards,

Karl Hohenstauffen 

Rachel Reeves: Do you increase salaries across the public sector without raising taxes?

 

Just hours ago the Labour Party launched an attack against Conservative policies regarding National Service and possibly concription because of the cost of such policies. But after that, Labour Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves stated that a Labour government would increase salaries across the public sector. Well, how much will it cost to increase salaries across the public sector. I reckon that it would be a lot more than National Service or Conscription.

Right before an election the mountain of contradictions rises on a daily basis. Just before Rachel Reeves spoke about salary increases in the public sector, Keir Starmer said that he would not get rid of the two children cap when it comes to Children Benefits in spite of the fact that he would want to do so. I guess the Labor Leader was thinking about cost of getting rid of the two children cap.

Services are necessary, but services cost monies that need to be paid with higher taxes at a time when interest paid on public borrowing is extraordinarily high. Labour says that it will not implement austerity, but you cannot promise to pay high interest on public borrowing and raise salaries without increasing taxes. And if you start increasing taxes, you can guarantee that companies that pay higher taxes are going to turn those higher tax payments into higher prices to balance the books. There is also the danger that higher taxes will lower consumption thus affecting the monies that the state can collect as taxes. Higher rates and lower amount of monies coming to the Treasury. And what about companies that are struggling to make ends meet? Less customers coming through the doors and higher taxes pushing up prices are not a recipe for success.

This is the way it works. If you collect 100 Pound as taxes and suddenly prices go up, then you will collect 100 Pound as taxes but only nominally. You are going to be able to buy less with your 100 Pound. State employees will be getting salaries that are worth less money in spite of nominal increases.

If you are paying 2500 for rent and suddenly the cost of renting goes up to 3500 then your salary has actually been devalued. Nominal increases will make things a lot worse.